6 Comments »

1. Has UA’s managment really sunk so low to even think about this idea? If they are going to do this, perhaps it is better to sell their US-Europe rights for Ryanair to use.

   Rather than bring in more $, this to me seems like the best way to lose money through ensuring lower yields on trans-atlantic routes and providing a great incentive for passengers to book with competitors.

   It’s just common sense that when you are in an airplane, with no access to outside services for 7, 8, or 9 hours + at a time, some sort of meal should be provided. And the airlines wonder why they have such a bad name.

   If true, this is very sad. I hate to argue for more government regualation, but if this becomes the norm, I suggest the gov’t step in and require airlines to provide meals to all passengers on flights over a certain amount of time, say, 6.5 hours, if they want to keep their license.

   Comment by Elliot Campbell — August 19, 2008 @ 9:12 pm

2. I agree - a terrible idea- forcing passengers to pay for food on long flights. Who can carry sufficient food for a dinner and breakfast without refrigeration? That will certainly have me making sure I do not fly United overseas. What will they try next- paying for water? Raise the price of the ticket. We are not stupid, we know how to add.
   On code-shared flights - how will one know if there will be no meal service - if one buys a ticket from an airline that serves meals on overseas flight - and ends up on a plane actually flown by United.
   Having recently flown United - I was disgusted at the poor condition of the interior of the plane. Parts of seat were broken - the interior was dull and dirty. I hate to think what it looks like “under the hood”.
   At the moment I am looking at flights abroad - and will certainly cross United off my list. There are a number of airlines flying to Europe - who needs United.

   Comment by toomanyfeesalready — August 19, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

3. stupid idea. in addition to points other posters made, can you imagine how messy the planes will be when everyone brings mcdonald’s on board?!

   if you’re flying coach to europe, might as well fly someone who’s going to feed you. apparently, united won’t be it.

   Comment by karen kay — August 20, 2008 @ 1:04 am

4. What irritates me about all the recent announcements of cutbacks in service and the added fees is the not-so-subtle hint that customers have a responsibility to share the pain.

   That’s just insulting. These companies were in awful shape before the spike in fuel costs. They’re facing bankruptcy thanks to their own decisions, not ours. Customers didn’t force them to fly inefficient craft, use hubs, and fly unprofitable routes.

   Maybe they will start seeing a spike in food poisoning on flights when passengers start eating food they bought hours earlier.

   Comment by justcorbly — August 20, 2008 @ 11:21 am

5. This is a FARE INCREASE. Plain and simple. If you charge for something everyone is going to have to buy, like food on a 7 hour flight, then that is a fare increase. Are they going to charge $3 for your seat belt, too?

   Comment by mwarden — August 20, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

6. This is un-bundling taken to the extreme. Why don’t the airlines just raise fares? Well, it is partly the fault of the buying public aided by search engines that places fares even 1 cent cheaper on the top of the list, even though by the time everything is bundled back in (i.e. meal plus luggage for a TATL flight), the “cheap” fare is more expensive than the “more expensive” fare. The buying public MUST demonstrate behaviors that undermine this tactic by airlines. Base your choice of supplier by the TOTAL cost, customer service, schedule, etc., not what comes up at the top of the screen.

   Comment by Ken — August 20, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI

Leave a comment